Quite a video. The entire episode appears to have been edited down to the throw and the punch, neither of which caused the victim of the assault any actual injury, according to the news report. It reminds me of a Gathering fight in which I thought my friend would be facing serious injury in a fight with a fellow more than twice his weight. Why is it that we react in such a way to such a size difference ?

Everyone in this group should really have it in mind to act right away. There isn't any time to hesitate. He could have easily smashed her face with a bottle in the time the assault went on. You have to act quickly.

I believe a gathering is quite different than this assualt, at a gathering it is an agreement to fight and the people train for that event. The bartender put herself in harms way to protect another patron. Also, at a gathering fighters activate their watcher to keep themselves from going beyond the threshhold. In this case the guy is lucky he didnt kill the woman in a drunken rage.

Logged

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed

A post on our DBMA Association forum indicaties that apparently it was generally known in the bar that this guy was a LEO, so the question becomes "What would you have done against this drunken off-duty and presumably armed LEO?"

I would have stopped him. I am a cop and his being a cop wouldn't stop me for a second. There is just no way around it, this guy is a violent predator that shouldn't be a cop. She was very lucky.

Just a week ago I threw an off duty cop out of a movie theater. Long story short, he had an argument with an employee and when they asked him to leave he flashed his badge and told them that they couldn't make him leave and that other police wouldn't make him leave. He was wrong on both counts.

I will be the first to defend other cops, even if they mess up, as long as they are trying to do the right thing. But when they are bad in the heart, they have to go. They make the rest of us look bad.

In my state this would have easilly been a clean case of self defense by the female if she used lethal force, and a good chance a bystandard as well. Means, oppurtunity, intent were all there to seriouslly injure or kill.

We've seen males ruff up females, generally domestic issues... but this case was an all out Attack- not a simple argument or slap. After viewing this and contemplating it i have come to the reality that if i do see something similar, a serious attack on a female worker i will have to act. What i would do in the case i am not sure as it will depend on the scenario - possibly throw beer in his face to break his ooda loop, aor take a stool to his leg, aor something more serious to get him to stop the threat.

Possible reasons the witnesses did nothing is that it seemed to overide their ooda loop- sudden and extreme overwhelming violence. The same principles many criminal elements use to immobilize(freeze) victims during crimes such as robbery take overs, home invasions, etc. Another possible reason could be more blatant as cowardice.

Some other thoughts on this maybe the ramping up most individuals need to come to violence. Few sane and productive citizens can go from 0-100mph at the drop of a pin. The ability to do so borders as sociopathic.

This is a heavy subject for a first post but I had to say something. I watched that clip and I was disgusted and enraged but I wasn't surprised. I worked as a bouncer for about ten years and have had to deal with similar incidents more than once.

To be clear, I think being a cop is the hardest job you can do. I have many friends that are in LE and they are good people. I have all the respect in the world for good cops. Unfortunately putting on a badge doesn't fix a bad person it just gives them more leeway until they are caught.

This is probably the worst defensive situation possible. You are dealing with an enraged intoxicated psychopath who is armed and above the law. What has gone through my head in a similar situation isn't just what can I do to stop this guy but can I do it without killing him? If you attack someone like that you have to shut him down HARD , or his rage and firearm will be directed at you. What happens if the responding officer is his friend? Good cops hang out with good cops and bad cops do the same. What if there is no video tape to corroborate your story? What is written in the report by the arresting officer is trump and if he is also bad your life is over.

So to put yourself in that situation you also have to cram all of that in your head while you deal with an armed monster in close quarters. I'm not saying you should run and hide but this situation is much bigger than just the fight in front of you.

I'm sorry to only pose more questions but I think they are important to this discussion.

For civilians in this situation, there is really no easy answer. You would have to what was in your heart. I bet that this isn't the first time that this guy did something bad and the other cops probably know how he is, but he just hasn't done anything (until now) that he could be fired for.

I think you would still have to protect the innocent person. If you hurt him, you might be in trouble until that video got out to the public, but then you would be OK.

I guess that what we are really getting at is choosing what is right over what is convenient. We can all stand up and say we would protect her from a generic "attacker," but when the attacker becomes an off duty cop, we know that the situation just got a lot more complicated. Being complicated doesn't remove the responsibility to defend a defenseless woman from very large man that is actively beating her.

There isn't an easy answer, but my sister works in a bar, and I know that if an off duty cop attacked her, I sure hope someone would come to her aid.

What would I do?? I would step in and put myself in between the woman and the off duty cop and hope that the other patrons would stick up for me when the good officers finally arrived. Technique wise? That fact that he is an off duty officer is a big factor on what I would do as far as striking but as for watching the video I see an instance where the guy on the left with the baseball cap could bumrush the guy, bounce him off a wall / counters and knock him down then maybe at least the others would assist. I think the main focus would be to get him AWAY from the girl.

Logged

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed

This is a very complicated , nearly a no win situation. Attacking the LEO would not help the situation , surely he is armed and clearly wasted and violent . Sometimes " the art of fighting without fighting " is the answer. I to have been a bouncer who has had many run ins with police fighting < in and out of the bar > and there is no easy answer every situation and person needs to handle problems differently i.e. I am a very large person and drunks do not like that and cops hate it even more, they instantly assume " you some kinda -hicup- tough guy? " hence I handle myself in a much different manner than say the average patron being a violent drunkard and a cop. -Chris

I've been an LEO for ten years, and I didn't become a cop to watch a drunken thug (LEO or not) beat up on a woman. You treat this guy like you would any other potentially armed drunken sociopath....with respect for his potential for escallation of violence, you respond accordingly.

In my state this would have easilly been a clean case of self defense by the female if she used lethal force, and a good chance a bystandard as well. Means, oppurtunity, intent were all there to seriouslly injure or kill.†

We've seen males ruff up females, generally domestic issues... but this case was an all out Attack-† not a simple argument or slap. After viewing this and contemplating it i have come to the reality that if i do see something similar, a serious attack on a female worker i will have to act. What i would do in the case i am not sure as it will depend on the scenario - possibly throw beer in his face to break his ooda loop, aor take a stool to his leg, aor something more serious to get him to stop the threat.

Possible reasons the witnesses did nothing is that it seemed to overide their ooda loop- sudden and extreme overwhelming violence. The same principles many criminal elements use to immobilize(freeze) victims during crimes such as robbery take overs, home invasions, etc. Another possible reason could be more blatant as cowardice.

Some other thoughts on this maybe the ramping up most individuals need to come to violence. Few sane and productive citizens can go from 0-100mph at the drop of a pin. The ability to do so borders as sociopathic.

comments welcome.

I note the reference to Boyd's Cycle in your post....obviously a military man or police officer with tactical training.

As per the failure to act, never underestimate the power of by-stander apathy, a real phenomenon where diffusion of responsibility allows most people to avoid acting by waiting until someone else acts. It's a proven phenomenon that the more people who are present, the less likely someone is to act.

"As per the failure to act, never underestimate the power of by-stander apathy, a real phenomenon where diffusion of responsibility allows most people to avoid acting by waiting until someone else acts. It's a proven phenomenon that the more people who are present, the less likely someone is to act."

This is an interesting idea. It sounds logical, but so too the idea that there is courage in numbers. Would you flesh this out some more please?

As a female and as a child growing up I was constantly reminded of the anecdote, "there is safety in numbers". In all honesty I have felt that I was safer in a crowd than in an alley, with one or two people. According to research however, this is a false sense of security due to a phenomenon known as the bystander effect. A person in trouble is much safer when there is only one or two people than if there is a large crowd of people in the vicinity (Latane & Darley, 1968). Whether a bystander helps someone depends on their self-interest, mood, and empathetic concern (Lord, 1997). It is important to address this notion because many people other than myself still have this false sense of security, and an awareness of it could reduce the possible negative outcomes of the bystander effect.

Davis and Palladino (1997) define the bystander effect as the tendency for a group of bystanders to be less likely than an individual to help a person in trouble. A bystander experiences qualms with the possibility of embarrassment, not knowing how to help and very often experiences a diffusion of responsibility (Davis and Palladino, 1997). The famous incident that sparked the concern of the possibility of bystander apathy (essentially ignoring a person in trouble) was the murder of Kitty Genovese. In 1964, she was publicly stabbed to death while people watched from their apartments and did nothing to help her (Davis and Palladino, 1997). Obviously, this event was cause for public concern. John Darley and Bibb Latane, two social psychologists researched the phenomenon and discovered the reasons for why this happens in our society. They demonstrated that helping behavior follows a model of intervention or a decision tree model, that involves five stages, noticing the problem, deciding if it is an emergency, taking responsibility, deciding what to do, and taking action to help. So when a person is in trouble they are better off to be around one or two people than in a crowd of people. As the group size increases a personís sense of responsibility is decreased because they essentially feel that "someone else will do something" (Latane and Darley, 1968).

I have always felt safer around the "macho" men (Army guy, body builder, athlete), a doctor, nurse or police officer simply because they are strong and trained to help you. A stronger seeming man is again a false sense of security. According to research done by Tice and Baumeister (1985), a highly masculine man is actually less likely to help someone in trouble. Essentially a highly masculine man, or "macho man" is less likely to intervene in a situation unless it is clearly defined as an emergency because they risk embarrassment. The explanation for this is a stereotypically make concern with "keeping their cool", and not seeming to overact (Latane and Darley, 1968). According to Latane and Darley (1968), there is actually no evidence of any gender differences in helping behavior, however there are differences in terms of the competence of the bystander. According to research by Cramer, McMaster, Bartell, and Dragna (1988) feeling safer around a person who is trained to help in an emergency is warranted because they are more likely to help. So a police officer, doctor or nurse are bystanders who would help in an emergency situation because they feel competent (Cramer, et al, 1988).

Research done by Gottleib and Carver (1979) demonstrates the possibility of reducing bystander apathy, or a personís unwillingness to help. Their research showed that if there is a chance that a bystander will have to face the person in trouble again, they are more likely to help them. They further found that like Darley and Latane found, the bystander effect is weakened if they are aquatinted with the person in trouble. Gottleib and Carver concluded that the bystander effect reliably occurs only under conditions of anonymity (Gottleib and Carver, 1979). A person is unable to ignore someone in need if they risk interacting with him in the future. A person who is contemplating helping someone in trouble is mindful of the gains, and the consequences of doing so. It seems that those costs and benefits are weighed before helping someone in need.

Interestingly, when a person is in a good mood they are more likely to help someone in trouble. This is so consistent that researchers have termed it "the warm glow of good will" a notion discovered by Berkowitz and Connor in 1969 (Lord, 1997). People who are in a good mood tend to regard the world more positively, which enables them to focus on the gains of helping in a situation. Furthermore people in a good mood want to seem like good people, so they help as a way to gain praise, and reinforcement (Berkowitz 1987; Gibbons & Wicklund, 1982). Researchers have even found that helping a person can improve a negative mood (Cunningham, Steinburg, & Grev, 1980) but people are not likely to help if their mood cannot be improved from the helping.

When a bystander is determining whether or not to help in an emergency situation they are going through a process of decision making theorized and termed by Latane and Darley as the Decision Tree Model Of Helping. In this process a person must first notice that there is an emergency, and actually interpret it as an emergency (Lord, 1997). Once a person has deemed the situation an emergency they are significantly influenced by the amount of people that are present which is the bystander effect. If there are many people it is at this point that a personís sense of responsibility diffuses. The possible problem with this, as seen in the Kitty Genovese case, everybody in the crowd senses of responsibility diffuse leaving no one to help. If there are a few people or if the bystander is alone, then apathy does not occur according to research (Latane & Darley, 1968). This is because the bystander feels responsible, and fears feelings of guilt. Once the bystander has taken responsibility they must feel capable of offering assistance and then something can be done. This process is what Latane and Darley theorize that bystanders go through when faced with an emergency situation.

The bystander effect is a real phenomenon and there are incidents that occur today even with an awareness of the possible consequences of it. In June of this past summer there was a significant occurrence in Central Park during a Puerto Rican Day parade in Fifth Avenue. A mob of men were attacking women, robbing them and throwing water on them. This was in the middle of the day, when there were hundreds of people around watching. The women went to the police but they were ignoring the commotion. This is a recent example of the power of the bystander effect. The more people that were there, the fewer people were willing to help. Disturbingly however, the police officers were not. The bystander effect can have serious consequences if people are not aware of its force in a situation.

The bystander effect is a real and possibly dangerous phenomenon. I think that people should be more aware of the consequences of it, and perhaps there will be fewer incidences of people not being helped. I think that if people are mindful of the latter influences on helping behavior then there will be less bystander apathy. Latane and Darley were the pioneers of this notion and there research central to the understanding of the bystander effect. Today people are still comforted by the presence of many people, especially at night, or in an alley, it is important that they are aware that being around crowds of people in a potentially dangerous situation is not always safe.

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed

"As per the failure to act, never underestimate the power of by-stander apathy, a real phenomenon where diffusion of responsibility allows most people to avoid acting by waiting until someone else acts.† It's a proven phenomenon that the more people who are present, the less likely someone is to act."

This is an interesting idea.† It sounds logical, but so too the idea that there is courage in numbers.† Would you flesh this out some more please?

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply until now.

As per by-stander apathy, it's a phenomenon where-by an individual is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation, the more other people are present. It's counter-intuitive, as you mention, but the effect has been reproduced and observed time after time.

It is believed that, where many people are present, the anonymity of the individual, coupled with his belief that others will act, reduces the psychological pressure on his/her ego to respond.

Hence, if an individual were the only one present while a woman was being beaten and mugged, he'd feel far more psychological pressure to intervene than, say, if it happened in the middle of a group with hundreds of people around.

The interesting thing about group/crowd dynamics is that it alters and effects behavior. It often compels individuals to do what they would not normally do, and not do what they normally would do. In a crowd, the individual begins taking directions from the group as a whole, a whole group-think phemonon takes place. That is why individuals in riots throw rocks and bottles, and generally act in ways they would not as individuals.

In the bystander apathy model, the crowd acts the opposite of the riot model, where each individual is waiting for a cue from the group, resulting in a delay of action or lack of action.

The key phenomenon are anonymity within the group and diffusion of responsibility. It has been suggested that the way to counter this phenomenon is to call out an individual within the group, thereby returning individual accountability and eliminating anonymity. This is similiar to how a riot is controlled, whereby less-lethal pain causing techniques are used to make the individual accountable by causing him pain, and making him start thinking as an individual again.

if someone with training had been present at this event, and if it is true that group apathy can be counteracted by " calling out an individual" within the rest of the bystanders..... would it have been a good idea to enlist help to subdue the attacker as a group (strength in numbers), or not? if this man was known to be a LEO and potentially armed, how does one decide whether to act alone or with others?

Logged

It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Miyamoto Musashi.

if someone with training had been present at this event, and if it is true that group apathy can be counteracted by " calling out an individual" within the rest of the bystanders..... would it have been a good idea to enlist help to subdue the attacker as a group (strength in numbers), or not? if this man was known to be a LEO and potentially armed, how does one decide whether to act alone or with others?

Of course.†

As for dealing with a potentially armed intoxicated LEO, you deal with him like you would any other criminal who is armed....subdue him, by whatever reasonable means necessary, and contact the lawful authorities once he's subdued, making sure that all witnesses to what really happen are identified and documented.

The real world isn't 'The Shield'. He's very unlikely to shoot you, even if he is armed, knowing that being in possession of his firearm, and discharging it in a bar fight, isn't defensible. I'm not saying count on him not shooting, just pointing out the reality is that an LEO isn't likely to bring his firearm to bear in an intoxicated state. A fist fight? Maybe. A gun fight? Not likely.

thanks for your reply.i guess my mind set to wandering about a more generalized scenario where the aggressor's background is unknown (perhaps LEO, perhaps not). perhaps there is a blade in evidence? or some other non-edged weapon?if ya got to do something and have a group of random strangers around you who can potentially help. what do you say? how much time do you spend having to explain what you need instead of intervening in the situation?...etc, etc.it seems that a group could become a hazard, to themselves and you, but also, perhaps, necessary to stopping a larger, motivated attacker.having some ideas of what to do to trigger the 'help now' response in a group and get them to act together would be a nice skill to have.

Logged

It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Miyamoto Musashi.

thanks for your reply.i guess my mind set to wandering about a more generalized scenario where the aggressor's background is unknown (perhaps LEO, perhaps not). perhaps there is a blade in evidence? or some other non-edged weapon?if ya got to do something and have a group of random strangers around you who can potentially help. what do you say? how much time do you spend having to explain what you need instead of intervening in the situation?...etc, etc.it seems that a group could become a hazard, to themselves and you, but also, perhaps, necessary to stopping a larger, motivated attacker.having some ideas of what to do to trigger the 'help now' response in a group and get them to act together would be a nice skill to have.

Examine flight 93 as an example...how long did it take to organize a response, and how was that response initiated.

Borderline OT but in relation to group psychology, when playing volleyball today and in the past and there are more teamates on my side with a ball headed my way i am less likely to hustle to get it unsure if the guy right next to me is going to get it. I could easilly get many of those shots, but with the guy right next to me the drive to get it is somewhat less - part of it is i am trying to avoid a collision, part is i think the other guy is getting it.

I read the article and thread but the video won't work with my firefox, so I'm guessing on a few variables.

As a bouncer (which I was for a few years), I would have probably come behind and held in the guy's elbows firmly enough to get his attention yet softly enough that he doesn't react as if he's being ambushed.

Then, called into his hears something along the lines of "hey buddy, chill out. You just hit a woman and you are being recorded on camera. Easy, easy, come on, come on bro, take a breath... etc."

Here's why.

I don't think I can subdue him safely and reliably, though a fast, hard, rear-naked has worked for me in the past. As said, if I know he's a cop and may be armed, then I'm hoping there is less risk in this approach than in going for the choke.

The message is in that form for several reasons. Call him friend, use the phrases "hit a woman" and "on camera" to surprise him (if possible) and get past his mental guard and get him thinking, if possible.

Then, easy, easy, calm down, take a breath, etc., to get him thinknig of something non-tactical. Hopefully, he'll chill.

No force-on-force, physically or psychologically, with this guy in this case.

This is my best guess on a tough situation.

As a patron, I would have probably just cleared people out of the way as best I could, opening a space around the moron, and fished out the injured woman as best I could.

I read the article and thread but the video won't work with my firefox, so I'm guessing on a few variables.

As a bouncer (which I was for a few years), I would have probably come behind and held in the guy's elbows firmly enough to get his attention yet softly enough that he doesn't react as if he's being ambushed.†

Then, called into his hears something along the lines of "hey buddy, chill out.† You just hit a woman and you are being recorded on camera.† Easy, easy, come on, come on bro, take a breath... etc."

Here's why.

I don't think I can subdue him safely and reliably, though a fast, hard, rear-naked has worked for me in the past.† As said, if I know he's a cop and may be armed, then I'm hoping there is less risk in this approach than in going for the choke.

The message is in that form for several reasons.† Call him friend, use the phrases "hit a woman" and "on camera" to surprise him (if possible) and get past his mental guard and get him thinking, if possible.

Then, easy, easy, calm down, take a breath, etc., to get him thinknig of something non-tactical.† Hopefully, he'll chill.

No force-on-force, physically or psychologically, with this guy in this case.

This is my best guess on a tough situation.

As a patron, I would have probably just cleared people out of the way as best I could, opening a space around the moron, and fished out the injured woman as best I could.

Regarding the "bystander phenomena."† There is an interesting book that investigates the personality make-up of a bystander vs a rescuer.

The link below is a review of the book "The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe" by Samuel P. Oliner and Pearl M Oliner.† The review sumed up the Oliner's conclusions better than I can.† I believe their conclusions are applicable to any of us seeking a civilized existence.

Anthony Abbate, a 12-year department veteran, was charged with seven counts of official misconduct, one count of communicating with a witness, three counts of intimidation and three counts of conspiracy, Cook County State's Attorney's office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said.

Abbate, 38, still faces an earlier felony charge of aggravated battery. He is to be arraigned on the new charges May 16.

The charges stem from a February 19 beating at the Short Stop Inn, a tavern on the city's northwest side, after the 115-pound bartender refused to serve a 250-pound man any more drinks.

The man, who police said was Abbate off duty, is seen in a tavern surveillance video punching and beating the woman and throwing her to the ground. Media outlets around the world have aired or posted the footage.

Abbate appeared in court briefly Friday for a previously scheduled status hearing, when prosecutors told the judge they had filed a superseding indictment to the original assault charge.

Abbate's attorney, Peter Hickey, said he was angry because he had found out from the media that there were new charges, and told reporters after the hearing that he didn't know what the charges were.

Abbate has been placed on leave and police have said they intend to fire him over the alleged beating, which has embarrassed the city and police department.

Police faced intense criticism because Abbate had been charged with a misdemeanor until the videotape became public.

Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline, who also had to fend charges that his department was out of control amid reports that another videotape showed six officers beat up four businessmen, announced earlier this month that he was retiring.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Logged

"This is a war, and we are soldiers. Death can come for us at any time, in any place." ~ Morpheus

WICHITA, Kan. ó As stabbing victim LaShanda Calloway lay dying on the floor of a convenience store, five shoppers, including one who stopped to take a picture of her with a cell phone, stepped over the woman, police said.

The June 23 situation, captured on the store's surveillance video, got scant news coverage until a columnist for The Wichita Eagle disclosed the existence of the video and its contents Tuesday.

Police have refused to release the video, saying it is part of their investigation.

"It was tragic to watch," police spokesman Gordon Bassham said Tuesday. "The fact that people were more interested in taking a picture with a cell phone and shopping for snacks rather than helping this innocent young woman is, frankly, revolting."

The woman was stabbed during an altercation that was not part of a robbery, Bassham said. It took about two minutes for someone to call 911, he said.

Calloway, 27, died later at a hospital.

Two suspects have been arrested. A 19-year-old woman was charged with first-degree murder. Another suspect who turned himself in had not been charged as of Tuesday, the Sedgwick County prosecutor's office said.

The district attorney's office will have to decide whether any of the shoppers could be charged, Bassham said.

It was uncertain what law, if any, would be applicable. A state statute for failure to render aid refers only to victims of a car accident.

Eagle columnist Mark McCormick told The Associated Press he learned about the video when he called Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams to inquire about a phone call he had received from a reader complaining about a Police Department policy that requires emergency medical personnel to wait until police secure a crime scene before rendering aid. McCormick said Williams then unloaded on him about the shoppers in the stabbing case.

"This is just appalling," Williams told the newspaper. "I could continue shopping and not render aid and then take time out to take a picture? That's crazy. What happened to our respect for life?"

Logged

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed